This article originally appeared in the ChE in Context column in the May 2025 issue of CEP and reflects the policy landscape and uncertainties at that time. This is Part 1 of a two-part series. Stay tuned for Part 2, which offers a more recent perspective and will be published January 13 on ChEnected. Part 2 is also available in the December 2025 issue of CEP.
- Pervasive uncertainty not soon resolved
- Greatly diminished federal resources
- Disregard of accepted science and its role
Now that the new U.S. Federal administration has executed initial actions, this article follows the January 2025 ChE in Context column, published in CEP, which summarized expectations of the administration. AIChE members display mixed reactions. While some appreciate this administration’s aggressive and rapid efforts to reduce government size and deregulate, there is also concern and confusion about historically government-funded responsibilities like research and other areas earmarked for elimination. Areas targeted include climate change mitigation, renewable energy, disaster response and infrastructure, pollution control, education, and diversity.
A fundamental shift in governance
The fundamental shift in this second Trump administration is its effort to sharply reduce government size while increasing the scope of Executive Branch power. The newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is abruptly reducing or eliminating selected U.S. Executive Branch agencies, while certain agencies are proposing to eliminate regulations. Because some of these actions may be found to be beyond the Executive Branch’s authority (because DOGE is not a cabinet-level agency nor subject to Senate confirmation) by contradicting precedent, process, conflicts of interest, and/or existing legislation, the courts are assessing whether these actions are within legal and Constitutional grounds. The administration is also repositioning itself on the global stage, changing historic alliances and withdrawing from participation in global efforts such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the Paris Agreement, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Success of the administration’s efforts to dismantle executive-branch agencies, offices, programs, and oversight boards remains unclear. The administration is pursuing its stated goals by eliminating resources, dismissing employees or buying them out with retirement packages, and requiring employees to return to the office physically. These actions may fail upon judicial review unless there is enabling legislative action. Similarly, attempts to eliminate regulation may fail for not following the Administration Procedures Act.
Executive orders and impacts on chemical engineers
To implement his vision, President Trump has issued executive orders (EOs) at a rate far exceeding any other president in the past 40 years. As of this writing (early April), the Federal Register reports 103 EOs (EO 14147 through 14249), and the JustSecurity.org litigation tracker lists 162 lawsuits challenging the administration’s actions. Many of these EOs will impact chemical engineers directly or indirectly, whether impacting language in contracts, threatening funding and, thus, employment, or abrogating parts of contracts, as in negotiated indirect cost rates. Chemical engineers, including students who comprise our future workforce, face great uncertainty regarding ongoing government-related regulations and opportunities.
One example that affects ongoing work is the deletion of language from federal activities including diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, reflected in EO 14151 eliminating DEI/DEIA (including “environmental justice”) from all federal activities, staffing, programs, practices, contracts, budgets, and expenditures and deleting content from government websites. Many practicing chemical engineers and academics perform work pursuant to federal contracts, through grant funding or under provider/contractor employment agreements, that contain now-banned terms in standard boilerplate language; this work could now be at risk.
Implications for science, regulation, and practice
Many of President Trump’s campaign promises and his initial EOs match the Project 2025 proposal, which may help in understanding the administration’s goals and actions. However, in some cases, President Trump is going beyond Project 2025’s government deconstruction ambitions. For example, Project 2025’s proposed return to pre-pandemic USAID funding will be eliminated in favor of the complete dismantling of the agency.
The administration has disregarded some accepted scientific determinations and cut positions without recognition of scientific or practical needs. EO 14168 provides an example that tried to justify policy: “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are founded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” Federal Judge Ana Reyes, reviewing the Trump EO 14168 restricting transgender people serving in the military in Talbott v. Trump, found: “This executive order is premised on an assertion that’s not biologically correct… There are anywhere near 30 intersex examples. Anyone who doesn’t have XX or XY chromosomes is not just male or female, they’re intersex.” This matter is directly relevant to biomedical chemical engineering, as it impacts both research and practice.
Nevertheless, chemical engineers apply science in the context of regulatory constraints. This administration’s regulatory policies will likely affect many chemical engineers and potentially create greater uncertainty, as when the administration pursues its attack on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas (GHG) endangerment finding to remove the support for all federal climate-change authority. We will follow up in a few months with another column after further judicial reviews and/or legislative resolutions of current disputes regarding the scope of Executive Branch power. The next column will dive into areas that most impact chemical engineers: regulatory actions and litigation updates involving chemical, energy, and environmental regulation.
This article originally appeared in the ChE in Context column in the May 2025 issue of CEP. Members have access online to complete issues, including a vast, searchable archive of back-issues found at www.aiche.org/cep.
